Libyans Who Once Opposed Gaddafi Now Regret US-Led Regime Change

(ANTIMEDIA)— Who actually benefits from American-led wars across the globe? The aftermath of American-led conflicts shows it is not the common people, though the military and politicians vow they are liberating and protecting them.

The Sunday Mail, Zimbabwe’s “leading family newspaper,” has published accounts of a number of Libyans who expressed regret over Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow in 2011, despite the fact some of them even took up arms against him. As one said:

“‘I joined the revolution in the first days and fought against Gaddafi,’ former revolutionary fighter Mohammed, 31, said from the southern city of Murzuq. ‘Before 2011, I hated Gaddafi more than anyone. But now, life is much, much harder, and I have become his biggest fan.’”

In 2011, we were told Gaddafi was going to commit grave bloodshed against his own people and that as a result, the international community needed to intervene to protect Libyan civilians. This proved to be false, according to an analysis of statistics obtained by Human Rights Watch. Further, an investigation conducted by Amnesty International also found a number of claims against Gaddafi were fabricated, as noted by the Independent:

“Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

“An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.”

The so-called “no-fly zone” the U.N. Security Council Resolution authorized did not allow for regime change, something NATO representatives further promised their Eastern counterparts would not happen. The resolution only authorized the coalition forces to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory. The resolution requested that the coalition immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

What this “no-fly zone” actually entailed was a full-scale assault on Gaddafi’s forces to ensure none of his aircraft could fly within his own country’s airspace. It also meant anything capable of taking out a coalition warplane would also have to be destroyed.

All of these NATO bombs were allegedly intended to protect civilians.

Furthermore, a Libyan rebel commander went on record to admit his fighters included al-Qaeda-linked jihadists who had fought against U.S. troops in Iraq. These fighters, known at the time as al-Qaeda in Iraq, are now referred to as ISIS. It should be no surprise that ISIS now has a stronghold in Libya following the fall of Gaddafi.

Before the NATO onslaught, Libya had the highest standard of living of any country in Africa. This meant the people enjoyed state-sponsored healthcare, high literacy rates, and other benefits that come with living in a relatively prosperous society. In 2015 alone, the country fell 27 places on the U.N. Human Development Index ratings. According to UNICEF, there are now two million Libyan children out of school.

Consumers of corporate media might also be surprised to learn Libya had an inclusive and progressive democracy where decision-making was conducted at the local level. It was not the dictatorship Sacha Baron Cohen incorrectly portrayed in his film, The Dictator.

Regardless of one’s views of Gaddafi, the former Libyan leader was able to provide stability and good governance to the people of Libya. It may be the case that he was responsible for torturing scores of dissidents, but one should bear in mind that the United Kingdom would actually send those dissidents to Gaddafi, knowing full well they would be tortured.

…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us